The real stories from inside the F1 paddock

Group Lotus

The Group Lotus press release of yesterday and some of the idiotic comments that have resulted from it, some of them deeply offensive, are rooted in the fact that I am a non-executive director of the Caterham Car Group Ltd. I make no secret of this involvement – in fact I am very proud of it. In the “Blog Rules” section of this blog it says very clearly (and has said for some time) that: “Joe works for publications all over the world. He occasionally writes material for promotional publications and from time to time acts as a consultant for companies involved in F1 – if asked to do so. The commentary, analysis and opinions expressed are not affected by these arrangements. If Joe considers there to be a conflict of interest he will stop such an activity.

“In the interests of full disclosure, Joe is a non-executive director of Caterham Cars Group Ltd. This is an advisory role in the company that oversees the road car business. Joe is not in any way involved in the operations or management of the F1 team. His involvement in the road car business will not influence his F1 reporting in any way.”

There are several key points that need to be made: firstly, Caterham Cars Group Ltd is not the Caterham holding company, which is called Caterham Ventures. It is one of the different divisions, alongside Caterham Technology, Caterham Hotels, the F1 team and so on. My involvement is related to the road cars and the strategy of other motorsport activities, such as karting and one-make activities. We have nothing to do with the F1 team. This is an advisory role and I have no involvement in the running of the company, and no influence in the Formula 1 team.

Why did I agree to such a thing? Well, when Tony Fernandes first appeared in F1 many of us were very impressed. He is an extraordinary individual. We have enjoyed a good relationship. I am always happy to help anyone who is trying to build or run a Formula 1 team if they are doing it in a sensible fashion. All too often in F1 new people come along and think they know all the answers and get upset when they are told that they are not doing things right. This is pointed out for the simple reason that people in the industry (and their families) are dependent on these individuals and I do not want to see teams closing down because they run into the ground by individuals who do know what they are doing.

In the past I have been asked my opinion on many things and I have made suggestions that have made some people enormous sums of money. I have never asked for anything in return. If I was corrupt and had been in F1 for 25 years without making a fortune I would be an idiot. I would have made a pile of money and would now be doing a job better-suited to those with more elastic morality. The worst judge I have is myself. I was brought up believing that honesty is the best policy and I still live by that rule.

Tony Fernandes wanted some experienced, independently-minded individuals with a bigger picture than average, with connections in the automotive and motorsport worlds, and he seemed to think that David Tremayne and I would be good people to help him with developing the Caterham car company. This was a great compliment. Tony is no fool and he is not going to try to influence our opinions. If we do not agree with him, we will tell him. We have made that very clear to him and he understands it fully.

There are many F1 journalists who work for teams, sponsors and other F1-related entities. The only unusual thing about this arrangement is that it is all above board and in the public domain.

The assumption that this means that I am corrupt is something that I find very sad and is, to my mind, more a reflection on the person having such thoughts, rather than on me. It is also irrational. Sir Martin Sorrell is a non-executive director (and shareholder) of the Formula One group and yet his companies represent many F1 sponsors and influence their opinions and strategies. Is that corrupt or a clash of interest? No, it is a reflection on his expertise that CVC Capital Partners wanted him to give them advice. My situation is no different to that.

When it comes to dealing with stories about Caterham and Lotus, it is vital that I do not avoid the subject. If I did then the directorship would be having an effect. I write about what I think is right and wrong. I may make mistakes, but I do not do it in a malicious way. Group Lotus has tried to portray me in another light in its press release. That in itself is a sign of the lack of discipline within that company.

If I am to be judged over Caterham Car Group Ltd I would prefer to be judged in a few years when the company has developed a little more. You can judge then whether the directors have done a good job or not. In the meantime I will go on offering the insight that I have gained in 25 years in F1, giving fans the opportunity to see how F1 really works and what is going on behind the headlines.

As regards the recent story about Group Lotus. I did not say anywhere that Dany Bahar had left the company. I did not say that production had been halted and I did not say that the company is in administration. How then can I be responsible for these rumours? What I did do was to examine the possible alternatives available to DRB-Hicom. That is all.

I will sort this out with Group Lotus and as far as the blog readers are concerned I ask simply that you judge me on what I write. People who get criticised by me are always going to try to justify themselves by trying to undermine me. I accept that. It is for me to prove that this is not the case. Those who read this blog on a regular basis already know that. If you prefer the Group Lotus version of the facts, that is your prerogative. For those who do not know, all I can suggest is that you keep reading what I write and find out if I am fair or not.

351 Responses

Having read the PRel in full this AM it puts things in perspective for me.

This is undoubtedly written (or at least edited and approved) by an Asian PR group – or worse Proton themselves.

Everything from the sentiment, wording, misuse/abuse of humour, the type of humour, the perceived need for this type of response, the timing and the gross misinterpretation of press comment to date (not least of which Joe’s) is classic.

I’m not going to go on here – if you want 4 hours on Cultural Risk you pay me – but I’ve worked extensively in the Far East with many of the biggest named companies and they often USED TO come a cropper like this. Almost never now, because they employ national/local or large international PR.

In my vague naivity I had assumed that Lotus was working with market-local PR groups.

I suspect now that they’re not and if that is the case, I can only announce a newfound, but very small degree of, sympathy for Danny Bahar. He will have repeatedly been through one of the worst kinds of corp hell over the last 4 or so years.

That feeling, as you lay in your hotel bed at 3 in the morning having just got back from a ‘team building rah-rah’ in central S.Korea, knowing that they all think you’re pulling together in one direction and that everything’s going great (because you’re doing it the way they want to do it !), but you know that things maybe aren’t going to translate that well, and the next day you have to pour cold water all over it. Add a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach that it shouldn’t have got this far anyway !

It seems to me that Danny and his team have either been led by the nose or given the money men too much latitude in this area.

Of course, if I’m totally wrong and the PR Co is in Mayfair – serves you right for letting the intern write your releases.

Either way, I wouldn’t put too much store in it, it will be laughed ‘at’ and ‘off’ by most of the public and the industry.
But nevertheless, its not nice to have your name cited in a formal Co release. So sympathy for Joe, however derisory this particular ‘ejaculation’ was.

Historically this type of thing WAS not untypical. These days most co’s have their s – – t together and this thing would never see the light of day.

I was tea boy on a sales floor pretty much (by salary scale) fixing deals that went wrong because a company in northish London had so many contract mags for institutions around the world, prided themselves on being the sophisticated boiler room, and thought they could hammer the world just as they hammered a select bit of Europe and the US. Ooops.

So I just went into every “blown” lead, (easy to catch, just wait for the groans and moans and cussing out of so and so at the water cooler) and started to learn what went wrong, what sat unhappily in the corner of the hopes of a customer. (the magazines were not that bad, and when you put on a top pitch, it does sound alluring, but they simply failed because of insensitivity) That was great – they weren’t letting 17yr olds at the “good leads” book (and yes, coffee was for closers, dear me) so i got my oar in at high levels because anyone from our side was – given them this sensitivity – too embarrassed to go back and ask. I liked to think i had a mature voice then, let’s say plum preppish at best, i can hear it now, and maybe what worked was i do convey emotions, nerves and so on. So I got talked to.

All i was armed with was coming from a prep school full of kids left behind by their corporate refugee parents and I was about the only english boy (this place deliberately modelled itself on where Orwell went and famously essayed, in fact was around the corner) and a little idea to be careful, open and seek to clarify and at all cost not offend. Aha! Deals. Not much to write home about, but I was off the mark.

Sales types tend to hate PR and often vice versa, but mainly sales are the bulls in the china shop. I enjoy a “hard sell”, i mean a really well constructed one, mindful to the detail of at whom it’s aimed and contextually honed and positive. But as by preference a salesman, not in a cold day in Hades would I let amateur PR handle anything I touched.

Was it Bill Gates who said he’s spend his last buck on (good) PR? Still, not a bad idea.

Just exec types love sales, bottom line for the month, the quarter, and so squeeze out a useful and highly skilled role to their own detriment.

Apols to the crowd, this is a bit of a love-in, but when i look at an ad, i think far more in terms of its effect, the language, if i have a sense of the culture then that too, way before I try to sell someone to put it somewhere. Don’t get me wrong, i love simply trading slots. But if my plan goes right and the trading thing can become simplified, we’d all have more money to spend on getting the ads right. Or just more money.

Back to this release: they simply don’t know the value of the attention they’re getting automatic, and yet how do so many completely bunk it up, turn gold dust into sawdust?

On your last comment, Interested, my mind boggles that you can run any kind of business without these sensitivities and sensibilities. The supply chain is simply too diverse. Many just hide behind crude copy, and in one field, luxury goods, whatever that is*, boy have they made a pigsty out of everything. But that’s more ads than PR. In that field PR needs to be first to overcome the atrocious adverts!

thanks for the fun views – most appreciated from here. – j

*I consider my inexpensive but titanium lightweight small wrist Casio watch to be a thing of luxury. Pleases me every day far beyond what 10 or 50 times or even more the spend would have got me, and I did window shop those quite thoroughly for research.

A very reasoned response, i take back any negative sentiment i had towards your involvement in the issue.

However here “Group Lotus has tried to portray me in another light in its press release”, it could be said that their argument was that you had tried to portray them in another light, a negative one. In my humble opinion of course.

I find it funny, i enjoy listening to you on An Aside with Joe, but find your blog writings to be somewhat “condescending (for lack of better word) at times.

I would look for a better word. I guess that you do not like it because I lay things out as clearly as possible and in basic terms. This is because not everyone has the same level of understanding and thus one must put things in a clear fashion. If that comes across as condescending then so be it. Surely that is better than not having the insight.

Like George Orwell’s rules… never use a long word where a short one will do, and if it’s possible to cut out a word, always cut it out. Basically, reduce it to the simplest terms and thus remove most opportunities for it to be misconstrued.

I just had a long and fraught social meeting with a friend from York, who likes to think he has sensibilities. Didn’t need to say his origin, but he cleaves to his idea of plain talk, and that’s often a regional self pride. Thing is, I had said he might be good (profitably so, for him) sorting out what i call “corp noise” – this happens when you go high up and go over peoples’ heads and suddenly everyone below is trying to tear a new deal other than the one signed. (Truly big advertisers have teams dedicated to do this, gain discounts if you are weak.) – -anyhow thing which i am working off the books, well it took about 12 years to get to here.

But my friend is trying to wing it, and every time I start out to explain why that or this won’t work because been tried before, and add more because different and potentially useful directions are approached, basically convey my experience, I got a upset tirade of how i couldn’t possibly know everything, and was dissing his input. Which closed off the useful talk as well.

Obviously I was nothing of the sort as he accused me, of being arrogant bigoted, big headed. I pushed him homewards.

Funny thing on this, is one person historically involved in the work for I guess nearly 30 years now, wrote to me once saying I might be the most knowledgeable person she knew concerning the work! (not so sure, but I did get obsessive about this one or three years and am a fast study, or rather called to learn off of everyone who did know anything)

I was not shoving anything down anyone’s throat, not my style, but the combativeness of it all against me when i tried to encompass a raised issue – look the guy is smart, he wasn’t talking crap, just het up about it – so as to explain how one thing connected with another, became futile and intolerable.

I still don’t have my appetite despite I am hungry and a great takeaway is opposite I’ve been planning to indulge all day.

So, bottom line: no respect for me I might have any insight or well formed opinions, or just know the facts which are not readily attainable (Oh, John, so you are going to do it all down to stitching the pages after you cut them, are you? Crikey, he actually said glued, for a thick book . .) but forget that, my living is disrupted, my late dinner is disrupted (which I would have gladly shared) and frankly on that second part of it, the anti learning of it all, I can’t stomach it, quite literally.

Sometimes you have to shoo away who is not taking the time and effort to play along politely, or you suffer yourself unfairly. I think my evening is not far from what Joe must feel replying to too many comments here.

The moment you act or think at a high level, you construct your words and thoughts and expectations and hopes even towards that level, not combat line by line adhominem, or in my case between pauses in breath invective, certainly not with who may feel inadequate about themselves. It is not risk of expending political capital, it is risk of expending human capital that better serves who likes your dishes. Yup, hungry, and my takeaway is just closed. That’s what happens if you suffer the wrong attitudes. My friend is still my friend, but no chance he gets to mess about like that again.

[tech note, Joe I have yet to find a web browser not playing up on your WordPress setup, i am defaulting to using Chrome now, but it opens and closes the reply box for i have no idea what reasons. I shall try IE9 for a bit. But really, these have nothing custom in them, not anything, and it’s frustrating still.]

Maybe someone at Group Lotus hadn’t updated their calendar and they thought it was still April 1?

Even if we ignore the digs at yourself, Tony Fernandes and Mike Gascoyne, that press release should never have been created, let alone sent out. There are sooooooooo many different areas of that release that are well beyond acceptable, well beyond normal practice and clearly well past decency and politeness that should come out of every press release.

I still cannot believe any company could put out anything like that. If the “facts” in their press release were all absolutely true and with cold, hard evidence to back them up, it would still be wrong to put out that release.

I agree that when I first red the Group Lotus release I thought they had missed April 1st and it was a joke. Even if I think about guerilla markting it is complete nonsense. I would just say that it is a very, very desperate moves that or more less confirms trouble in Group Lotus. Maybe they should put more energe into provinding enough engines for pre Indy test instead of making idiots of themselves. I think that many Indycar teams regret sigining Lotus engines now as they are in disadvantage comparing to Honda and Chevrolet teams as they have been from the very begining with delayed deliveries of engines for testing…. Keep your good work Joe as I enjoy the blog and GP+. I do not always agree with everything but it is only natural that people can have different opinions on some subject – at the end some men like blonds and some brunettes🙂 However, the angry response from the Group Lotus indicates that your articles were spot on.

Even if i didnt already rate you highly Joe, just 1 look at the press release from Group Lotus that reads like it was written by a bad tempered 12 year old and your balanced mature response speaks volumes. I fear GL is going down in flames and they trying to bring as many as they can with them.

Just tangentially, because still GP+ runs on the fumes of passion, not big revenues, now is the time to start fishing for other great photogs to join the happy catch. Nygaard is great, but I mean not to say a thing about Peter’s work, simply that style and mood and qualities just not readily accessible to most critics are what is important to bring a varied balance to the magazine. I think for it to expand, take on any new authors, or simply to counterpoint itself, there would be so much to be found in enticing a new photographer. It takes nothing from one man, if the pages expand. What you get in GP+ is distinctive because it is made by who cares. But if you accept that, that the core is strong enough, as a magazine it might start to explore. Adventures would enthuse, not detract. Though I say that and when my since master at prep announced a musician friend of his would accompany out beloved outing for holiday, oh how did I resent so the man who met my parents later and became my business partner. Oh how bleak and scary it was, our innermost sanctity pulverised by these new ideas (all so well written, we might care for the history of the very strange place we visited) and how alien was he! But looking at Darren Heath’s stuff anew, the photographer (sorry Also Darren Heath!) some photographers simply capture a different feeling so well that is must be channelled. Peter Nygaard’s work flows with Joe’s writing. But Heath’s could be a more anodyne tone, gentle, inviting, playful even. Oh, no need a specific man, I am trying to drive at a cinematographic coincidence of script and image that may be played with. Practically, GP+ must expand, but I think it is deserving of artists, inkers, colorists, those who see the geometric proportion in every dimension from the words. I might say it takes some advertisig sales to afford, but that might be cart before the horse, concentrate instead on the production. It is very good, but perforce there is no deign team, limited by time not talent. Even a design team can be taught to work to anticipate mood and the float of atmosphere in a weekend. I think they would have t be there a the race also, people who can read the colors, the skies, the feel of the place and use that in layout. Hmmm, Art House GP+? But I bet design students cry out for the chance, That might risk the Fastest Best deadline policy. Find someone who can manage that. Why not get the best local students to improve the graphic themes each race? Get their academic maters proud of the input, selling the race another way, and not in the slightest not helping the magazine. Have a cabal around the world tweaking what it is inefficient to tweak now, but they would love to for the credits alone. Have uni departments spinning off copies from their presses, somehow similar to how I print in my home office. Have some nutty design students abuse their faculty to ber handing out GP+ in print just as it goers live. I know the advertising metrics would be awful. But what value a bunch of the best from each local campus handing out enthusiastically what they just worked on? In PR terms that would be awesome. And it could snowball. I am serious now, get designers from unis, license them to print of as many as they wish, not for resale, and do a discount for the electronic subscription to anyone with a verifiable academic email address. (that’s easy to sort out to check there’s no blagging, i mean) and give that for a token amount. There is a young audience out there, and I was accused of being old fart when I was 19 because i read all these expensive serious magazines. I was working when my friends were at uni, and they were a tight fisted lot . .. i mean they railed against anything at normal price because they could barely afford. But what we all loved at that age was not freebies, but accessibility. That is why the internet took off, it gave who had little, enormous choice. So give the students cheap GP+ subs, even for a quid. Just get something back from that crowd. Harks back to PR: word of mouth makes things good and can make things huge. If I was at school again, with the modern kit which is normal, I’d have been running around telling everyone the new magazine was in and take a look. A few years later these are very desirable demos for any magazine.

HearHear, I think it was a shameful and very childish act by Mr. Bahar and the professional response by Joe despite his good name being smeared all over the net speaks volumes in itself.
Keep up the good work Joe!

Stay strong Joe. Seems like a desperate act of juvenilism to attack a journalist (“I know what we should do: blame the media”!). Given the Lotus response, I would conclude that you must have been spot-on in your prior posts. Lotus must know that, or else it would not have felt the need to respond.

What a lot of crap. When you fall off your high horse, go and find out how Jenson Button got his first drive in F1. No doubt that was before your time. Anyway, as I said before, I’m not forcing you to read it.

Yes you would be. It was a pleasure meeting you in Melbourne (I parked the horse outside) and it was a fantastic evening. Your blog is excellent and awesomely informative and I wouldnt ever criticise it.

Bill Murray in The Life Aquatic. I have that kind of grey bead just now, pockmarked still tanned thinning but leathered skin, and despite the sunshine it’s a fresh April morning, so rather than jacket, i went out with a woollen cap on. Same pretence, to cover the thinning hair. But if Joe could unshave and find a woolley hat, I’d rather take Gambon’s role. DT could take Dafoe’s. The Dude might take Seu Jorge’s, lyrical, ever so whimsical, counterpoint. Who would play Own Wilson’s inspired new hand and lost son – i am too old? Goldblum’s part is easy, certain fool under a different banner, and we get to nick all his good stuff. Pity analogy fails as the real person has nothing worth stealing. We just need an Angelica and a Cate. Doesn’t quite fit, Joe being Steve Zissou, Joe’s just not as plain weird and cranky as I am, i mean Joe can be cranky but he has reasons to be so, i like exploring crankiness. Still, make me the Greek financier, that’s truer. Joe has to have the hero role. Especially now, what with the next races.

Aww, mucking around, no I’m not part of the team but i loved how in that movie there were so many loyal devoted stragglers because of the central character’s sometimes unknowing strength, even when he was a alienating and pushy and not understood they attracted to him because it was his dream, and they all found their private reasons for being there in the end. Just takes one well meaning lunatic to start such a thing!🙂

To be honest, I read the SniffPetrol thing before I came here; I then read the actual press release. Initially, I thought it was the usual SP parody but then realized it wasn’t too far from the actual release.

The real Lotus press release sounds like it was typed by someone’s snarky 13 year old daughter. Weird.

To quote one of the comments in the article ‘Next time, ask yourself, “Would Porsche put out a statement like this? Would McLaren?” If the answer is no, stop. The correct response in times like these is to shut your mouth and deliver the product.’ – totally agree and can’t believe the rantiness (sic) of the press release

No worries, Joe. You have built a reputation for being an excellent journalist and one press release cannot ever change that. I have more faith in your word than anything that comes out of a corporation.

Joe, why so defensive? If nothing else, I’ve never considered you biased against any entity. You just call it the way you see it. I’ve disagreed with some of your POV’s on occasions but you’ve allowed me to respond and I thank you for that. The fact I agree about Lotus, Vijay and Michael is irrelevant.

That press release from Group Lotus last night was vitriolic. When good people who have different interests to their own (which we all do every day – it’s called business) are attacked it smacks of desperation. I’d be honoured that they consider you worthy of being attacked. In company with Tony and Mike isn’t bad at all!

is easy to make clarification..doesnt change the fact you been crapping about them which is nt real ~!! Thats why F1 journalist nowadays are pathetic…they know nth about the race…can only emphasize on controversial politics of F1….one of the major contamination in F1

the problem is, you are working for your own…whereas Danny is working to keep their job alive~~!! Spreading these unreliable sources of news will only damage their reputation and nth more~!! I suggest you to investigate on Caterham F1 team ‘s financial status, they seems to be more worrying than you think~!! After 3.5 years the performance remain the same, Tony still giving excuses such as we are just two years old ( which is nt true), give us some time~!! come to think of it, you nvr wrote on them regarding on this matters~~!!

Kanne, your summary of what is right or wrong shows you do not know that much. So far Caterham cars has been working quite fine and for a casual observer their strategy to growth seems to be working nicely as they are putting more into the company.

To say that Bahar is working to keep people’s jobs alive … Hm, what emerges from sources around Hethel shows a rather different picture with some people already having been sent away, some having rather abandoned a sinking ship and some doing their best to make the most of it.

The fact newer teams struggle to get close to the midfield F1 team is rather a reflection of how hard it is and how much experience goes into it. It shows F1 is very competative.

As I wrote on Lotus’ cars facebook post, if they are not embarrassed by producing that tripe attempt at public and media relations, then they need to start finding new jobs.

I heard a few weeks ago from Marshall Pruett with SpeedTV that both Honda and Chevrolet PR staffs at the Indycar races discussing their engine deals with Lotus nowhere to be seen. That combined with this incident, I am starting to wonder if they have a media or public relations staff at all.

Good on you for taking the high road.

Personally, I would’ve sent the team a gift – like a 1/18 model of a Caterham – with a note attached, “Thanks for increasing my blog’s readership by 500%” or something like that.

As I long time reader, sometimes I feel that there is a bit of conjecture written.
But understood as you are in F1 insider, long-time journalist, & frankly , better attuned to the F1 circus than most. In Grp Lotus’ case, it might have hit too close to home.
I think they just told you to mind your P’s & Q’s ,
and we’re ( Proton,DRB Hicom) still figuring this thing out……….

First, I enjoy the podcast. That said, it’s silly to portray yourself as you have. You clearly admire Mr. Fernandes and your employment/association with any of his companies has rendered yourself completely bias. The explanation about the holding company vs. the road car concern is just a difference without a distinction. Could you imagine an elected legislator using that same unsupportable logic? Undisclosed, it’s an ethics violation and possible criminal matter. Disclosed, you’ll take hell and you’ll have a real problem. This would be true if you were a CPA, a judge or anyone that, theoretically, is suppose to be objective and free of any conflict of interest. You’re simply not operating arms-length when there are issues of Caterham, Lotus, or Force India.

Perhaps you can illuminate. I’m having difficulty believing a journalist, that is an active and respected, takes money from a team or a sponsor and then writes honest critical stories concerning those parties. If I was your editor and you were an employee, I’d not allow it. If you didn’t disclose it, I’d suspend you or fire you. If you were freelance, I’d not use any story your write concerning that end of the grid.

If your F1 activities are about offering your opinion, that’s peachy. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s entertaining and fashionable. Christ, it’s the internet and podcasting. But, in matters that aren’t arms length, you’re not acting as a traditional journalist being held to the highest standards.

My advice, quit explaining it or apologizing for it, just embrace what you are.

When he writes about facts, it’s impossible for bias to be involved. If evidence is given, then it doesn’t matter if he’s getting paid millions to say it – facts are still facts. Suggesting he’s wrong because of his associations are nothing more than ad hominems.

When he says it’s not good that Force India dropped Liuzzi with one year left on his contract, you could argue that he has his biases (liking Liuzzi, and getting paid by Fernandes), but you can’t argue that simply letting someone go late in the year when you previously promised them a job is a pretty bad thing to do. Despite any biases you might conjure up, it’s still a bad thing to do that to a driver (or any employee).

I too read things with a critical eye, and I’ve noticed a few times where he’ll give a bit more airtime for or against someone (more mentions of praise for Liuzzi or more mentions of Mallya’s financial problems), but when it comes to the actual text, it’s about as objective and verifiable as it gets.

If you were an editor, I would suggest that you look at each article’s content before making such rash decisions.

It is often a sign that all is not right in someone ‘house’ when that person chooses to randomly attack others, justified or most often not. Political leaders throughout history have often started wars to deflect attention away from domestic problems.
As such I would be more interested in what the press release doesn’t say.

As far as your integrity, as long as you consider yourself to have a clean concience then that is all that counts at the end of the day.

I have always found your writing to be informed and level headed without agenda, and I will continue to read for as long as I continue to enjoy it, whether I am in agreement with you or not.

I’ve known both you and DT for all of those 25 years and F1 journos don’t come better or more honest for that matter. Having said that I think you will need all your collective wisdom and then some to sell a car called Cateram in numbers that would make economic sense.

Motorsport sponsorship. It’s all the rage these days. Slap your name on a bunch of stuff – it’s guaranteed profit! GT cars, F1 cars, Indy Cars, One-Make Formula Cars (GP2 and GP3)… If you put “Caterham” on the side, people will think you built it!

Well saying as Lotus cars have almost completely abandoned their traditional market it wouldn’t take a genius to think Caterham could go in a scoop them all up. The Elise sold in pretty serious numbers when it was around the 20k mark.

I kinda wish Caterham had gotten the S1 Elise license off Lotus, would have been brilliant to see what they would have done with it….?

I’ve watched this situation unfold for months, and as an F1 fan, and in no way associated with any team or anyone in the sport, I’d like to share with you my thoughts.

As a corporate director, you are no doubt aware that good governance requires one to recuse oneself from discussing or voting on issues where a director has a real, potential, or perceived, conflict of interest.

Where I believe you have a problem is attempting to maintain your journalistic integrity and independence when making comments on subjects that directly or indirectly benefit or harm the company you serve as a director. I am not implying that you are biased, and take your assertion that you have a strong moral compass at face value. Only you know the motivations for what you write, and whether they are influenced in any way by your responsibilities as a director for Caterham. But there is a real and obvious perception of bias based on your interest in Caterham.

But you can’t have it both ways. You should recuse yourself from commenting as a journalist on things that are relevant to your company directorship, or you should resign as a director and speak your mind freely and independently. Clearly it would be very difficult to do the former and still be an effective and independent F1 journalist.

It is splitting hairs to say that you are a director of a “different division”. There is a brand, and that brand is shared across divisions, as are I suspect the overall corporate finances. And as a director, you share a financial interest and fiduciary responsibilities with Tony Fernandes.

Pointing to other journalists who do work for F1 teams is a red herring. You are in control of your actions and not theirs. If there are conflicts of interest with others, then those should come to light and be addressed. Reputations should matter, and that should guide decisions about the kind of professional engagements journalists engage in. That’s what we as fans of the sport expect from our journalists.

I also believe your situation is different from that of Sir Martin Sorrell. He is not a journalist commenting on the sport. His relationship with FOM may well be viewed by some sponsors as an advantage for them. They are driven by commercial interests, not journalistic ideals. And I would read anything coming from his companies as understandably self-serving.

If you were a director for Hyundai, then there would likely be no conflict. But you’re not. You’re a director for Caterham, and Caterham competes in the FIA Formula 1 World Championships. If Ferrari had a road-car-only subsidiary and one of your colleagues was suddenly announced as its newest non-executive director, he or she would clearly be finished as an independent journalist.

This isn’t a position I would want to see other F1 journalists put themselves in. It’s challenging enough for them to get access to the teams and be able to write at times unflattering stories without having this additional complication. It can’t be helping you to arrange interviews with Force India and Lotus GP given their recent conflicts with Caterham. How do you get both sides of those stories now?

To me, this is a governance and independence issue. You have a longstanding reputation in F1 for being an very knowledgable and thoughtful journalist. But I believe you have to pick a side.

To say you are an independent journalist when you are a director in one of the teams is a joke.

I have been reading this blog for a few years now and have never seen anything but fluff pieces on Caterham/Team Lotus/Lotus Racing (you dont have to dig deep to find dirt on Air Asia’s lack of ethics) and yet savage reporting on anything Force India or Proton/Lotus/Genii related.

Joe, no matter how tenuous you do have a link to the Caterham organisation and that will always see your integrity questioned by some. Indeed, having a vested interest such as this would see you being brought to book if you worked for an organisation like AP or Bloomberg, whose journalists (including freelancers) are not allowed to accept any PR junkets, gifts etc. By having such an association, your motives can – and will – be questioned no matter how strenuously you claim to remain independently minded.

And while you may not necessarily be interested in having readers who question you and your intentions, it’s very difficult for any writer to pick and choose who reads his work. Of course, you are entitled to publish your opinion on anything you like, and I enjoy your insightful analysis of the F1 world, but you must be prepared to accept that you will be questioned in such a manner because of these links, even if you are transparent about your association with Caterham (which you have been).

If your other replies are any indication, I doubt I’ll receive anything other than a condescending comment telling me to take my readership elsewhere but, rather than climbing onto your high horse, it might be a better idea to address the root cause of the issue and decide whether you want to be truly independent or be someone whose intentions are questioned because of the company he keeps. It’s impossible to have it both ways.

It is impossible to have it both ways if you have no morality. Some people however have high standards for themselves and in that case one CAN do both things without one affecting the other. The fact that some people cannot understand that says more about them than it does about me.

That’s a fair point – ultimately, though, you will have to live with those questions being asked because the vast majority of readers of your work don’t know you or how your moral compass is calibrated (beyond taking your comments in relation to that at face value or judging your work over a prolonged period).

If you believe the links with Caterham – or anyone else for that matter – are not having an influence on how you cover F1 then that’s entirely up to you and while your work – from what I’ve read of it at least – does not suggest you’ve been biased in your coverage, those questions will always be asked by some. I suppose you will just have to deal with those as and when they arise. The joys of freelance journalism…

Farouk’s on the money. It’s a question of perception of bias rather than proven bias. Most of your Caterham stories have been positive, but then that is the case in the rest of the media as well. But there is no way for us to be sure.

Farouk is not on the money. Farouk does not believe that I can do both things at the same time and not let one affect the other. There is a very simple way to make sure. Believe me. If you don’t want to do that then that is fine, but in that case don’t bother me either. I would rather spend my time with people who trust and believe, not those who do not. Read some of the other comments here and see what people think.

Joe writes things – you read them – you either agree or disagree – you then write your own comments – we all get both sides of the deal (informed, misinformed, right, wrong, idiotic, mmmmoronic, waste of time …..whatever.

The concept is pretty simple.

Problems would arise if Joe had hidden associations, but as far as I’m aware he hasn’t. Even if he did, would it matter ?

Get on with your own life and treat it for what it is. A highly enjoyable, well informed editorial.

Believe me – your life will not be changed by this blog.

If Joe was running for Prime Minister or was a lawmaker I’d want to know a bit more, but he’s not.

I don’t think it’s pompous at all – it’s an issue that deserves to be highlighted one way or another. If you can’t see that, then you know little or nothing about journalism and the duty of care charged upon those who deliver it to be open and transparent in their dealings so that all who read the work of the aforementioned journalist are aware of any potential bias or conflicts. Joe, to his credit, has done this but it won’t necessarily stop the questions being asked or stop some questioning his impartiality. And we, as his audience, have the right to ask those questions because ultimately it is us who decide whether we should believe him or not.

And while it might ‘only’ be a blog (as Elliott Gould’s character in Contagion said: ‘Blogging is graffiti with punctuation’!), it is widely read, highly respected and comes from someone who has had a long-held reputation as a reliable and informative source. If that source cannot be questioned openly – as has been the case here – because of his associations, then what is the value of having this kind of forum, or indeed this blog and its comments section? Better this – a frank, open and healthy dialogue allowing all parties to state their case and/or opinions – than potentially libellous comments such as those which appeared in the Lotus press release.

Farouk, as reader of Joes for about 25 years, I find it insulting YOU question his integrity. Does your honesty change with your employer? Do you set your ethical and moral standards to the level of those giving you a paycheque? Do you determine your value by the views of others?

Mark, there just isn’t that level of codification in any rules for company directors. It just wouldn’t be workable.

The Companies Act 2006 is already just shy of 800 pages (depending on printer margins) and is reckoned to be the most voluminous piece of civil law ever written. I have read it all, many times.

There is not a jot of governance issues as you imagine in there. It’s already a quite onerous thing for a conscientious director to abide. Statistically, I wager the majority of directors have never consulted it. But I doubt Joe sniffed at the worth of familiarising himself anew, not least because he clearly has before to inform his writing.

You have been sold a crock, as to someone else’s purport of governance, just as you seem to have absorbed another crock, as to the value of journalism.

I give you this, that there does seem to be an undercurrent of debate as to what standards Joe as journalist may be held to.

Somehow Joe is being held to some very high aspirations far far beyond any scrutiny applied to his industry contemporaries. That’s not a poor compliment.

Can those who work for big media companies, please disclose with whom their ultimate paymasters may be affiliated?

Oh, no, they don’t. That’s why it’s exactly those large organisations are the very same who toot the horn of petty prep school values (as deigned by marm) of integrity and ethics.

Not one bit of that is pertinent to someone who just gets on with it. Such rules are their own hypocrisy – please find me any journalist not tainted, when you look, either by money or by proprietorship or by truly held view which normal folk might allow as opinion.

You forget you were falsely promised these schoolboy theories because when journalism was a closed shop, they served as a unthinking holier than thou obstacle to freelancers as equally they were a palliative to placate the unthinking proselytisers of such codes (how reactionary 70s, bless my childish cotton socks of then) into patsies protecting their proprietors’ interests, and engorge the reciprocal smugness of readers who merely wish to buy their sense of progressiveness on a Sunday.

The dog whistle pitch of codifying ethics in reportage came to zenith as the media started to break from closed shop, and those hacks who had sold themselves out realised they had been duped and abused their privilege and needed a tool to discourage a new generation. There were real breakaways. ITN was one of them. I once spent a wonderful sleepless overnight train with one of their very first reporters.

That happened when I was a boy, and Joe was really just starting.

But there is convenience in these frail and crumbling protests. Because the public en masse has been sold the fallacy time and time again despite being duped repeatedly, sunk wholesale, suckered.

The conspiracy is not of independents abusing imaginary power, but a conspiracy of mass media producers colluding with a embarrassed public, disinclined to accept their weakness of mind and inattention, and laziness, creating a wall of rejection to anything which does not suit impossible cookie cutter fairy tale morals, a unattainable hurdle no-one cared for in the first place, and one you will see no sane man attempt to leap. Exactly how many journalists or authors write well of their subject, having never been involved? Or, is the Financial Times where you should seek advice to bet your all? Or The Economist to understand your econo – politics, average age on the desks shockingly young, post grad?

The fallacy big media wants to sell you is that you should rely on someone other than yourself to evaluate what you read, and in that way they keep a market. That lot would never dare scare you away, because they have a delusion to perpetuate. Since when has Joe not suggested to read elsewhere? That’s not a rude thing to say, by my view. Just normal. Do look elsewhere. Make some test for yourself. It cannot hurt. Catch The Guardian saying that and I’ll choke on my cuppa.

Simple differences, just funnily being offered the choice is considered offensive, because it’s not the done thing. Out of character for a “proper” newspaper. But consider why they want you to feel so offended. And yet how do you reconcile that you hold Joe to the highest standards, and not argue as well that somehow that is not the case? I do say it is because you have been trained to expect very different and intellectually occluding reactions, and you must unravel that separately. But if you hold something on high, bring your arguments up to that level which you expect and wish to entertain.

The best journalism is simply frank. Quick and simple of talk, and gets on with it. Gives you the minimum or nothing to essay for some media studies degree. Do you spot much of that out there anywhere? Let alone in F1?

I was more concerned with the effect a directorship has on a journalist who writes for a space in which the company participates. I’m using “the company” broadly here, because as I said above, I don’t see the distinction Joe does regarding road car division vs F1 division. The brand is the brand. How the F1 team performs does have a material effect on how the road cars are perceived by the market. That’s why brands associate themselves with F1 (and sometimes leave).

I’m also not arguing that journalists must be devoid of all bias. I have only mentioned conflict of interest, perceived or real. To me, the question is this: Is it preferable or not to have journalists actively participate with companies in the space they write about? I say no. We pay marketing people lots of money to perform this kind of writing.

Joe is of course free to continue to do whatever he wants. As someone who has enjoyed his writing for a long time, I commented because this concerned me. Especially as I saw the level of excitement I perceived in his writing about Force India’s woes, and the finances of Lotus (or Renault, or whatever they’re going to be called). I haven’t searched exhaustively, but I don’t recall seeing similar coverage by Joe about Team Lotus/Caterham. And as a director, he may well have to remain silent should their be an issue that affects the Caterham companies.

I don’t have concerns about journalists using their skills and experiences for things other than writing. Being a director is a perfectly appropriate way to share your expertise with a company, and help it forge a path to success. However, I’d just prefer Joe be a director for a company that doesn’t participate in F1. That’s all. Just some feedback from one of a great many readers.

Of course I can read others’ F1 writing. And I certainly recognize a difference in the quality of the writing in F1. Professional writers are paid. How they are paid, and who their paymasters are aligned with can fairly be used to question their objectivity. It is by definition a spectrum, and the reader must do his or her homework.

I don’t know Joe, but from what I’ve read, he’s not a man who is motivated by money, and I respect that. But, he has aligned himself formally with a company that has interests in F1. I’m not holding Joe to any special high standard. If his membership on Caterham’s board prevent him from getting access to some F1 teams, then his work suffers, and I have 1 less interesting writer to follow. I’d be asking the same questions of any journalist in this situation.

I have let this subject go on for long enough now. That is it. I am now officially bored with it. Everyone who knows me is now behaving as they always. They understand the Caterham story and why I am doing it. The time has now come for the philosophers/business ethicists/Uncle Tom Cobblies to go and start making a similar noise about the Group Lotus executive who is – even now – writing about F1 for a very large UK newspaper, and there has been no full disclosure that I am aware of. If you want irony, there you have it… All I have ever done on Group Lotus is to try to help save the jobs of those in Hethel, and for that I have been defamed and insulted.

Joe, over the past 3 years i have read every post on this blog (i think) and i can honestly say i have never seen even a hint of a slant towards Caterham F1, as far as i am concerned this topic should now be laid out to pasture!

Can i suggrest that whenever you get a negative comment about your relationship to Caterham that you simply delete the post? there is no point letting it do your head in and i for one am over some of the negative comments from people!

I think deleting negative posts would ruin the open discussions I see here; opinions should be expressed and discussed even if they are unpopular. The only way we grow stronger and smarter is by defending ourselves rationally and civily. To bury negative posts would indicate, to me, a lack of belief in one’s honesty and ethics.

Joe, keep posting the negative comments. Let’s talk about them and let their strength or weakness decide their validity and/or usefulness.

SteveH, while i do in most respects agree with you i feel that every time a story comes up about either lotus, caterham or mallya people will instantly jump on the “but your a director of caterham and therefore you are biased towards them” wagon!

There is no point going over this every time, i don’t subscribe to the conspiricy theories but i do believe Joe will shut down the comments on this blog once he has had enough of the negative comments! yes i understand it is a blog and people have thier own oppinions but this topic has been covered as far as i am concerned!

When facing the end of the road, some seek to blame their misfortune on perceived enemies rather them themselves. One might surmise that Joe’s association with their former foe put him on that list of enemies.

No PR director in his right mind would have allowed that diatribe. The only possible benefit would be to feed the ego of whomever penned it and perhaps create a minor amount of trouble for those they feel wronged them. No CEO in his right mind would allow a PR director who authored such a disaster to remain in his post, well, unless it didn’t matter anymore, unless the enterprise were about to fold.

“May you live in interesting times” is not a compliment. It’s intended as an insult – the idea being that living in uninteresting times means you have a serene and peaceful life (perfect for Buddhists).

Not what you intended, but that is how the phrase was originally intended.

“I was brought up believing that honesty is the best policy and I still live by that rule.”

It would be nice if more people lived by such rules Joe!! Massive respect for trying to report in an honest fashion. In a world full of clichéd F1 articles it’s great to read a blog like yours with informative and well written information.

Joe, you have plenty of fans who aren’t bothered by any of this and are still your fans. For me, you are an interpreter/translator/teacher of F1. Reading your writing makes me feel smarter (and I like that!).

Totally agree. Joe I’ve recommended your blog to loads of my friend as its insightful and interesting. As just a fan of f1 and no connections to it, other than the few technical quotes one might pick up on autosport- if it’s not on this blog’ it’s probably not worth knowing or caring about.
Thanks again and keep the posts coming.

I read your blog regularly. Funny thing I got the impression of lotus heading into administration and bahar being gone from your blog or tweets. Going back through both, you never come out and say anything of the sort, but for whatever reason, this reader was left with that impression. If I was, I’m guessing many others were too which probably broken telephoned it’s way back to the black & gold team. Moral of the story? The mixing of opinion, conjecture and facts does not make for a clear message.

It’s quite sad to see Group Lotus slowly imploding like this. Especially given the number of people that rely on their sponsership in motorsport.

Joe, I have been a great admirer of your work for the last 18 months or so and believe you when it comes to matters of journalistic integrity. Just carry on doing what you do best and ignore the bitter rantings of a company with weak leadership, no direction and no discipline.

About that involvement in Caterham, you write:
“Tony is no fool and he is not going to try to influence our opinions. If we do not agree with him, we will tell him. We have made that very clear to him and he understands it fully.”

From what I have seen of Fernandes so far, I would even expect him to want you exactly BECAUSE you WILL tell him when he is wrong, something people in a company often are afraid to tell their bosses.

Joe, just keep doing what your doing, if any self respecting fan cared enough to read back through your posts they would see what in my opinion is the most unbiased reporting of F1 on and off the track. In a very Bahar move to blame others for his failing, driving a storied manufacturer into the ground and then taking credit for a sponsored Renault car to be a Lotus is in very poor taste. Their is some fishy dealings going on in the background with Lotus that need to be reported and due to (as i would see it) your loose affiliation with Caterham F1 they see your reporting as an easy target, an independent with no PR machine. No point dwelling on a child throwing their toys out of the cot, I hope to be still reading your writing long after the courts end up settling the can of worms which Lotus has become, Best of luck

that press release was MENTAL. Somebody must be getting fired for that, it does just read like a drunken rant – I’m surprised its not full of typos and drunk spelling. If anybody still liked Group Lotus before this then its over

Well, as I read the statement of Group Lotus, I do not find that they blamed you for Dany Bahar rumour (contrary, they pointed to someone else), so why do you fight Group Lotus’ statement like if they did?

just looked at Group Lotus press release, toys out of the pram comes to mind, a very strange Press release for a professional organisation, however they can not think their situation is nothing more than self created……………

What a PR nightmare from Lotus. Did your parents ever say to you when dishing out punishment, “This is going to hurt me a lot more than it will hurt you.”?
This press release will damage Lotus and have bugger all impact on your reputation.
She’ll be right.

Joe, I’ve read your stuff since you were in Autosport. What was that, 20 years ago? Always to the point, and none of the airy-fairy sugar-coated stuff you get elsewhere. It’s fact, or a thought out argument. That’s why your articles are enjoyable. I hope idiots making stupid comments don’t make you thing ‘why bother?’

As far as Group Lotus go, didn’t they embarrass themselves enough with the whole ‘Team Lotus’ debacle last year? As my Mum used to say, better to keep quiet and believe people think you’re a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it.

Trouble is, when something fails, it’s easier to blame someone else than take responsibility for your own actions. Usually businesses blame the bank – see Bradford Bulls and Wrapit for two examples. That press release says to me Group Lotus are feeling a lot hotter under the collar than they wish to admit.

As they’ve spent the last few years making one of Colin Chapman’s creation a laughing stock, I can’t say I’d be too fussed if they did go belly up. Maybe Genii can then pick up the pieces and put the company back where it belongs, reputation wise.

Joe, you and I have crossed swords on here a few times in the past, but personally speaking I don’t really care about who you advise or do work for. Everyone is biased to a degree – for example you seem to have a higher opinion of Liuzzi than most – but I have to say I’ve never detected any bias in respect of your reporting of Lotus or Caterham. So far as I can see, you’ve pretty much stated the obvious – that Dany Behar’s plans are rather ambitious and that going from sponsoring a F1 team to not sponsoring it in the space of a few months is a bit odd.

Don’t get wound up by them. They are the ones making themselves look ridiculous. Dany Bahar is killing the marque. I really hope an 11th hour deal can be done where Tony Fernandes can save GL and the workforce, bring the Elise/Exige under the Caterham banner and the Evora under Lotus.

Sad if true. Even sadder was the behaviour of the Chapman’s when Bahar came in. Throwing away the perfectly good (& very cheap!) association with TF all because Bahar promised a nice shiny building for Clive Chapman to house daddy’s cars in all the while living off the millions that they got from the legitimate sale of the Team Lotus name back in 91…

When any animal is cornered and fighting for its survival it will strike out at anything and everything that it can – sadly for all of us this is where GL is right now. Keep up the good work, and let your skin get a bit thicker!

I have to admit to being one of the few people who is vaguely impressed with the Lotus press release – the bit about Mr Saward aside – as I’m sick of the bland tripe generally pushed out by companies. Be blunt, show some humour, ruffle some feathers, I’m all in favour. Hell, it’s given us plenty to discuss.

On the subject of bias and journalistic neutrality / integrity, the following:

No-one can be informed and yet impartial. Consciously or not each and every one of us makes associations and connections and these things will affect our interpretation of events. Your point of view on any situation is influenced by the position from which you make your observation.

As for journalists, it’s really no different. Each of them will present a different opinion based on a set of information available to them – and their sources will depend to some extent on their opinions and character too.

You can even take it a step further and say that you’ll have a set of biases in your attitude to the journalist based on the apparent quality of their reporting, their reliability with inside info and predictions of the course of events, or even their other activities.

We the people have two choices – try to get any and all of those viewpoints in order to construct our own image of the situation; or find a viewpoint which presents the images we agree with or wish to see.

This stuff applies as much to Joe’s work for Caterham as it does to the fact that brand names influence taste tests.

Bottom line for me is that whilst, for example, Joe doesn’t like Vijay Mallya, I’m okay with that because from what I know of him I don’t much like Vijay Mallya either. So if you need me, I’ll be sat outside a café on the beach, drinking a great tasting ice-cold Coca-Cola ™. Because I like it.

To all the people questioning Joe’s ethics/bias – maybe you need to look in a mirror and question why you have to rely on one/.a small number of sources of news journalism for your ‘complete picture’.

As a journalist and being in possession of various mediums to express his opinion, Joe can write what he wants. Director of Caterham/foil of Group Lotus or not, if he’s overstepping his mark in the former position, someone higher up in the Caterham management structure will say so and he can act accordingly.

Use the gift that is your human brain (you know, most complex computer on the planet etc.) to read all the stories from every angle and form your own opinions on the matter.

If you can’t do that, unplug your computers, turn off your TVs and sit in a dark room – it’s safer that way!

““DRB-Hicom is naturally taking a reasonable amount of time to decide what to do with Group Lotus. DRB were buying Proton and they realised by default they were the owners of Lotus.” There’s your due diligence, right there!🙂

Joe, carry on doing your thing. As I posted on another article here, the presser from Lotus is insane, desperate and I suspect not even the work of their PR team, it’s nuts.

You can see from the outpouring of support here what we all think and feel – your influence and CREDIBILITY is borne out by the fact a big rough tough multi million pound car company bothers to cite you in a press release, albeit an insane one!

You’ve REPORTED what’s been said, done and what the options are, you didn’t invent the stories but Lotus Cars seem to need a whipping boy and right now it’s you.

I’ve been a reader of Joe’s work for as long as he’s been in F1, from Autosport, through various other outlets and this excellent blog. In all that time I don’t think I’ve ever thought that anything Joe has written has been biased or unduly influenced by external forces (i.e. being a non-exec at Caterham). People mistake blunt talking for bias.

Joe is one of the few jouirnalists working in the sport that boths reports in a way that brings the reader to the racetrack and delves into the business behind the sport. Yes, as Joe admits, occasionally he makes a mistake – there isn’t a human being on the planet who doesn’t, but some of the personal digs at Joe on here and by Group Lotus are an appalling insult to a true professional.

I don’t know if any of you watch Top Gear but Kimi was on early in the past series (I think it is on BBC IPlayer) and his reaction to whether Group Lotus was involved in the F1 project was illumnating.

He essentially seemed to insinuate that the team he races for is the Renault team that was bought by Genii and that Lotus are just stickers.

You only have to look at both the press release mentioned (note the word ‘Title Sponsor’) and all the fluff going on in the past two years wrt to Tony Fernandes/the Lotus sponsorship. Bahar’s motley crew are sitting on a heritage goldmine that they’ve all but exhausted – Genii aren’t stupid so likely took a step back when it was clear Proton/GL are against the wall and unlikely to be able to be title sponsor for much longer.

It’s also worth remembering that the team fell away in 2011 due to lack of development. Funds drive development.

Aside from the incredulity of that release and the bitter mud slinging do you have a view on the restructuring and financing of Lotus GP with a £30m Proton loan? Easy to think DRB Hicom might call that in early and with the loan totally secured against Enstone it must leave them rather exposed? Surprising too that the financing was required?

Group Lotus are entitled to their opinion (drunken rants included) but not their own facts.

Personally I think Joe writes about the stories that interest him and he has a longer view on the business aspect of F1. That’s why I read his blog. It is a blog and therefore personal opinion is clearly a part of it’s character. A blog is often a cross between the opinion pages of a newspaper and the analysis pages. If you come to this blog expecting a Reuters esque fact stream, you’re probably in the wrong place. For that go to Reuters!

Every journalist is human and has their biases. Every F1 journalist has a driver or two they have got on well with and will recommend. This isn’t corrupt – it’s human nature. When the BBC hired David coulthard as a commentator/analyst his association with red bull (and later Mercedes) caused a lot of trouble but he seems to have done a steady job. He also writes a newspaper column.

If Joe ever came out with endless press releases for caterham on this blog you could be forgiven in saying it’s biased, but simply commentating on the business behind the sport and the failings of rich men making blunders is and always has been a fundamental part of joes blog. Long may it continue.

Sheesh .. whole 90 responses on such a simple matter.
Joe said: “There are many F1 journalists who work for teams, sponsors and other F1-related entities.” – and that’s normal. If you smell bias – don’t read it. It’s as simple as that.

More seriously though does Dany Bahar really have such a fragile ego that he has his PR guys release that nonsense over a joke in Sniff Petrol? This obviously was not something authorised from the bottom of the chain, the inclusion of details of the Group Lotus/Lotus F1 arrangement that were not previously public knowledge guarantees that.

The £30m loan intrigues me. Is this “new” money, an agreement to repay this years installment of the sponsorship money, or an agreement to repay last years sponsorship money? If memory serves me correctly the F1 team were expecting £30m/yr from Group Lotus – and I certainly do not believe in coincidences.

The whole press release was bizarre from start to finish, but the motivation for including those details escapes me.

The thing is, the details of the arrangement between Group and F1 WERE public knowledge, if you knew where to look for them. I’m no fan of the tone of reporting on Pitpass, but they are right to point out that all the details were there to be seen in the small print at Companies House. The point that they have missed is that a sponsorship deal means the F1 team get the money, whereas a loan deal means the F1 team gets the money but has to pay it back. Portraying a sponsorhsip deal and a loan as one and the same things is stupid, and it is this that Joe and virtually every other commentator on F1 and the motor industry has pointed out.

I have sat in on a presentation that He gave to us in the City. The guy, like him or hate, he is pretty slick – like any seasoned marketing person would be. He put forward a good case to us veterans of the City and we have seen a few snake oil salesmen in our time. Therefore I can see why Red Bull and Ferrari speak well of him, in public that is. His brand building and marketing helped those companies.

One should think that this release was given by someone who may have an axe to grind within Group Lotus, and want to embarrass the company, as they maybe on the way out.

Interested party – point taken and of course we have not heard any form of retraction from Group Lotus on this Press release, and therefore assume that it must be correct. Second point, so far, who within Group Lotus is claiming to have written it. So far no one is pointing the gun at him.

All I can say, is that he is class act marketing – brand person, not a car engineer, nor a real money man. He was brought into Group Lotus by Proton to reposition the brand. The senior board within Proton had to sign off on the loans they gave – agreed to, and they are or should be car people and therefore know how long and what risks are associated with bringing new models to the market. More fail than are successful in the Car world. You don’t get it right all the time.

From the presentation he gave us and the language and when he spoke, off record and on record, this doesn’t sound like him.
I should point out that I have a vested interest in Group Lotus, as I own one of their older models. I am not a fan of the new current range. As for the new models he showcased a while back I personally though it very ambitious to maybe a point of recklessness on part of such a small company, but maybe with good resources from their parent company. Am I fan of him, no I am not, but I think given what he has to work with and what he has done so far, I would say the report is still out.

I am much more concerned about the way Genii has finance their purchase of the F1 Race team, and there current press statements. They seem – appear to be very economical on the truth element, and the spin is done to there so called benefit.

I’m about 95% on board with what you say. Proclamations by Dany did always come across to me as Marketing 101, and I suspect the last 3 years has been the biggest MBA dissertation on record.

I have a feeling that had he been dealing with a UK or US parent Co it would not have got this far. Not that they’re better than Proton et al, but its a cultural thing.

Don’t really know too much about Genii as have never sat down and had a good look at them.
Their concept sounded a bit dicey to me at the outset (not dodgy, but possibly another one of those ‘built on sand’ things). It wasn’t clear as to how they would generate money other than by asking people for it, or putting together the ubiquitous ‘investor panel’.
Wasn’t immediately obvious how they planned to grow investor wealth either.

All these things I have in my diary to sit down and get to grips with.

I’ve previously said that Genii seems to be more than half competent – at what I’m not sure !
It did register with me that the funding for the team purchase was not exactly fluid and accessible.

Thanks again – speak soon.

PS – I don’t own a Lotus, but really love their 50’s/60’s formula and sports race cars !

I placed that bet over on james allens blog. Personally I forsee Dany dictating to some horrified PR assistant copywriter as the office slowly backed away before the Facebook update button was pressed…

Mine too! My first reaction was that the press release was far too personal to have gone through the usual PR channels. The response to false rumour #1 sounding just like the proper playground response to any taunt – “am too!” As a Lotus owner it’s all too depressing to see what’s been done by Bahar and Co.

Many people just want a target to vent on. Sadly it appears that you, in this instance are a target, because you have:

a) An opinion
b) Have taken on a position that many (myself included) would love to have an opportunity to do (both as an F1 journalist and as a non-executive director of a company like Caterham Cars), and;
c) In my opinion keep the facts front and centre when faced with the rampant blatherings of people who just want a forum to be heard.

I won’t even bother mentioning the Lotus Facebook thing except to say – Once upon a time Lotus stood for engineering excellence I remember the Esprit Turbo being able to pull lateral G numbers that were astounding and power output numbers per litre that were also at the top of the scale.

Now – not so much.

in my opinion when Danny Bahar made his comments to the effect of watch us become a real luxury car player it was the beginning of the end.

Stick to your knitting do what you do and keep coming with incremental improvements don’t talk big and then wait while the crickets chirrup.

Hats off to Tony Fernandez. He does his job, sticks to his knitting and seems to be succeeding because of it.

Anyhow. Cheap shots come and go, especially when the facts aren’t exactly palatable. If the numbers being reported are anywhere near correct then Lotus – the car company – doesn’t look like it has a great future.

Surely Joe you don’t need some of the tripe written above…
Honesty being the best policy and full disclosure are honourable traits but I think the speech is getting a little too free..don’t you? I mean that of others – just to be crystal clear.

If I were you I would close the comments down. The comments section is for discussion and queries – not abuse. If people want to contact you then I’m sure they can still do so privately.

…and the general gist of those comments was that you shouldn’t have closed down the comments section??

On of those comments ironically was my own!

You are very generously giving your time to this blog, for which I and many others I can tell are eternally grateful, but I certainly would forego the right to comment on your blog if it is being abused by a few to the detriment of many and simultaneously causing you a great deal of stress!

I’m open to a small monthly/annual fee for access to your incisive blog. People can disagree and be abusive – but for a fee!

yep, am with you, fee or not, so many posts not worth his time. He could toss those at a glance that are disrespectul, inane, etc. as far as I’m concerned. Never see any of the anonymous cheap shots coming back telling us about their blog where their work is lived in public each day.

Joe I’m an avid reader and fan of your blog. I also believe that a few of the ideas Group Lotus have had may be good for the companies future (some definitely not so good), many will disagree of course but that is my opinion. Time will tell.

However the press release produced by Group Lotus is ridiculous and offensive. You are a journalist and must report on these matters, you are also entitled to your opinion. Its been a bad couple of days for Lotus……

Joe. As long as you are completely transparent about your Caterham role, I do not see a problem.
You have obviously struck a nerve. The Lotus press release got a write up in todays Daily Mirror.
I would personally love to see Group Lotus come out of this stronger and commercially healthy.
Reading your blog does not affect my view on that.
Lotus need to grow up a little.
John Mansfield

Joe: Don’t let this get to you. I understand your passion for F1 clearly makes it easy to take things personally, but there’s nothing gained by dropping in the direction of their level. . Nothing good comes of it.

You’re one of the best professional journalists I’ve had the pleasure to read. Just keep doing you excellent work.

Joe,
I’ve been following this closely for some time and the one question that I didn’t see answered was, why would TF hire two extremely experienced people (JS and DT) with a wealth of insight into the business, people, tech and history of F1 and then waste them in a road car division?

In this blog post you wrote : “My involvement is related to the road cars and the strategy of other motorsport activities, such as karting and one-make activities. ”

Now it makes sense.
can you confirm that this is first time you’ve stated that you are involved in Caterham motorsport?

Or did I miss something on the blog, in the blog rules, Aside with Joe etc.

Until yesterday, I had not heard of Joe Saward, however I have now taken time to read what he writes, which is well informed and balanced comment on an industry he knows.

The disappointing part of this from my perspective is that Steve Copley of Autocar took Joe’s blog and used it as the basis of a tabloid type article in his magazine to generate internet traffic.

He added so many caveats, might, could, possibly etc to his article making it obvious it was purely speculation. That however did not stop the readers of Autocar gorging on “armchair expertise” which I tried unsuccessfully to defuse.

I used to have some respect for Steve Cropley when he was editor of Car magazine, now however, I have none.

Joe, I enjoy your Blob, I respect your views and I still listen to other points of views and reports.
Your reporting is clear and informative and a great read.
Keep up the good work.
Don’t forget that ‘all publicity is good publicity’ no matter how incorrect.

PS. are you a Group Lotus director as well? because this has upped your profile no end and hopefully increased your Blog readership and GP+ Subscriptions (which is still the best F1 publication).

Well done Joe. I love reading your blog and its the first thing I open in the morning over my cornflakes.
When it was announced that TL would be rejoining the grid a couple of years ago with Tony Fernandes I was pretty excited. Lotus was the team I supported when I first started watching F1 in the early 80`s. I fully understand there was little DNA from that original team but they did seem to have huge amounts of support and it was easy to sense that the spirit of TL was there, clearly a proper serious race team ( unlike HRT… ).
When the whole sorry mess with Group Lotus reared its head last year I was dismayed. It dilluted the brand, and for me, Toleman/benetton/Renault will always be Toleman/Benetton/Renault. I`m always scanning down the list looking for Caterham now as it seems to me that team has kind of began where TL left off in 94, in other words, lots of promise but this time we can look forward to the team begining its climb up the grid.

Oddly though, in a lot of ways, this mess reminds me of the DeLorean fiasco all those years ago…

Am I the only one that finds that press release hilarious? That Mike Gascoyne joke was funny. More so with the way it was worded. I think because every press statement that I have seen in the last 30 years has always been PC and this wasn’t.

On a side note, I disagree with the release questioning anyones integrity. I have been reading this blog for 2 years now and i’ve always found it extremely informative and unbias.

Fear not Joe, I’m sure you know that we are with you here. It seems that the Behr has been baited, has the hook in his mouth and it just remains to see if he escapes or ends up in the keepnet. Let the due diligence prevail!

Oh I’d always thought it was Mallaya/Force India you were always accused of being biased against.
Everyone knows Bahar was a joke of a CEO, the type who fights over living space when the whole apartment complex is on fire.
Proton has had its share of woes and the Proton – Lotus combination was never one that made any sense to me.
Inspite of that, Bahar didn’t help matters by trying to live above his means. Throwing good money into the wrong problem and neglecting the core issues. I’d predicted before that he would have the carpet yanked from underneath his feet. If he hasn’t been sacked yet its because he will have to slave to pay back those ridiculous sums he spent promoting a brand without a product.
Lotus has not made a real car since the Elan.

There was a time they were tunning the engines for the Corvette, they could have used that V8 as a base engine for a real powerful sports car, even if the way the engine revs won’t make your spine tingle.
Ah, but all that was before Proton. So back to Bahar and his penchant for wasting other peoples money. You can’t out Ferrari a Ferrari, less so overnight. Fernandes is no saint, but he had some good will and had rekindled the Lotus motoring spirit with his entry into F1. Lotus needed to establish a new legend over time. But trying to buy success overnight, or worse so, through the courts, was just ridiculous and a real slur on the brand.

So to Group Lotus Vs Genii.
I thought it was Lopez bragging that Genii can fun its operation and that any binding agreements they had with GLotus was now nullified. But from this release of info, it appears Genii placed all their assets including any resident mice, as security for the loan from Group Lotus. This is indeed very strange. It also highlights that there may be some sirious misgivings about the whole arrangement, perhaps from the new management.

Genii!!? What do they really do or own? Renault loaned them money to buy their F1 team. They secured a loan from Group Lotus which was supposed to be an investment or even sponsorship. It appears Genii are just ball jugglers, good at handling other peoples funds but owning none of their own.

A very well balanced response to a rather bizarre press release. The phrase I’d like to give you, if you’d like it is “Don’t feed the Trolls”. I have seen people trolling your site with more finesse than that, I can only imagine it was an employee with some kind of grievance with their management. Whatever they might be doing, don’t let them drag you down. Keep doing what you’re doing Joe.

I have to say I was very surprised by the content of Lotus’s press release, and the tone was absolutely abysmal. I don’t think it has any grasp of reality, and I did wonder if it was the sort of thing that might leave them open to litigation. However, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t really fully understand such things.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. Whilst I don’t always agree with what you say, Joe, (and I do agree with most of what you write, and find much of it to be very illuminating) I can attest to the dispassionate nature of your writing, particularly when it comes down to Caterham. There is a clear division between what you do for one part of the group and what you write about the F1 team. Anyone who suggests otherwise needs to learn how to read. And there are people who have attempted to paint you as biased. They need to go and have a look in a dictionary.

Joe – I very rarely post comments, but in this case feel the need to express my support, as this has obviouly touched a nerve for you, as I can appreciate how much your integrity matters to you.

You’ve been open about your involvement with Caterham, you have always been honest in your (freely available) opinions and most importantly you share information (facts) those of us outside the closed world of F1 would not otherwise be aware of, or have the skills/persistance to obtain.

You also care enough to maintain a dialogue with us by responding to our comments.

Well said Joe.
I already knew about your connection with Caterham, because as you say you’ve never tried to hide it.
By the way, reading the press release from Group Lotus, it seemed so poorly thought out it made me think of when Kevin Keegan had that melt down at Alex Ferguson…..

Lotus v Saward: what a strange exchange of verbals. From an F1 outsider to an F1 insider, Joe you are always highly articulate well informed and interesting to read. There has to be room in a PR dominated world for independent thought provocation, precisely where your blogs fit in. Your bound to step on a few toes as you hack along. Juvenile mud-slinging from Lotus is incredibly naive. Surely whoever wrote that press release generated a good laugh in the office and he/she must have a boss who would ensure it went no further.

This Dany Bahar is more John DeLorean than Colin Chapman.

I have 2 questions for you:
(1) What on earth is Lotus in 2012?
(Seems to me the iconic 70’s black & gold is now adorned by 100’s of racing cars of various formulae)
(2) Why would a car company chose you as a non-exec-director-consultant? I I remember correctly you never had a driving license till middle age?😉

There has been an obvious bias which has shown an obvious conflict of interest here for months. An impartial observer can see the way you lay in to Lotus, FI, Proton, and then more personal attacks. Which obviously look even worse now we all know you bat for Caterham. Sorry Joe, I love your writing, I really do, but for you to not acknowledge this is killing your credibility and worth.

Your friends here might well defend you to the hilt, but clearly, they are bad friends. Butt lickers are no use to any one.

Please Joe, wake up and smell the coffee, you are only damaging your own credibility. And like I say, I do value your other, non Lotus/FI writing. Hell, Im even, like you, very impressed with Fernandez (sod F1, his business and humanity brain is spot on) and leapt for joy when he bought Caterham.

Please, please have a long hard think about how you are playing this. If you were a personal friend, I would be saying the same thing to your face, having bought you a beer / cup of tea.

Sorry, but no-one who knows me well would hold such a view. I am what I am and I have values that are perhaps old-fashioned and difficult for some to understand. I do not care. These are my values and they have served me well in life. Anyone can be rich if they are corrupt. I have seen it happen time and time again in my time in F1. It does not take brains nor any particular talent, you just have to need it and be willing to cut corners and screw people. And a lot of folk do that. I don’t. I am poor and I am happy. I do what I want to do and I am very proud of what I have achieved. But I never sit still. There are always new lessons to be learned, new things to be involved in. I have done a lot of interesting stuff over the years and I continue to do more. The Caterham thing is a great opportunity for me to do something a little different, like writing a book about a sea captain, or about secret services. It will have no influence at all on how I deal with F1. That is my core business and has been for 25 years. If I thought I was damaging my credibility I would not do it. If you think I am biased then that is up to you, but reading the comments today you are clearly in the minority. At least you are polite, unlike some.

Hallo everyone,
I am missing voice from the factory, the voice from the Lotus Cars office, form the very beginning of the whole sage between fernandes’ team and whatis now called Lotus. Strange that I read none on the net, like it was forbidden by a top guy. Do you know, joe, what they are thinking about al of these. At some point when things are settled I would like to know the opinion about this coming from the garage, so to say.

I might as well join in supporting you Joe despite the enormous number of responses. I don’t always agree with you but then that’s the privilege of being a part of your blog – how you find the time to reply sometimes amazes me, so well done.

Hi Joe,
Great blog and always my first port of call for news and views. I’ve only ever posted once before but felt you needed extra support on this.
As for some of the comments (Lotus included), I always find it helps to remember half of everybody you meet is stupider than average – there is no point trying to explain things to some people…

My reaction to this press release was summed up quite well by http://www.sniffpetrol.com, worth a look! What a ridiculous pile of garbage, I hope they continue to get the reaction thay deserve. It’s a ridiculous way for an F1 team to behave.

I think everyone has their own biases and preferences, but it doesn’t mean they cannot be objective still, and I personally don’t recall any particularly pro-Caterham reports that were out of kilter with reality.

I would kind of see Joes Casterham association with Caterham in a similar way as Martin Lewis’ (moneysavingexpert.com) connections with companies that help to fund his website – very often he will recommend a non-supporting company over one of his affiliates if they are giving a better deal. Honesty and Integrity can still see through no matter who is paying.
Sometimes ‘who pays the piper calls the tune’ is NOT the case!

To me, “Lotus” means – and always will mean – Colin Chapman, Jim Clark, Graham Hill, Jochen Rindt, Emerson Fittipaldi and Mario Andretti. It means Our Nige getting over-excited at finally leading a grand prix and sliding into the barriers at Monaco. It means Ayrton Senna destroying the rest of the field in the rain at Estoril.

The present management prove time and again that they are not worthy custodians of this legacy.

Have you ever tried getting time with tony Fernandes? Until you have it is best not to make assumptions. We have not talked about F1 since September or October. We talk occasionally about real estate in West London, universities and a lot about cars and branding. He has people far more capable than me to make decisions in F1.

I follow your blog for some time now, and I always thought that you are biased, just like I think every british who love motorsport is. I think that I’m biased too, as every Ferrari fan is. This is my biased opinion.
I like reading your blog, even if your opinion is not the same as mine, and sometimes I think you focus on some issues more than I care, but this is your blog, not mine.
I didn’t need to know that you have a professional relationship to Catherham to understand tha you liked that team, and I have no problem with it, as long you are honest as I think you are.

For me, motorsport is passion even if you are a journalist, and you can see it if you compare the F1 midia from different countries.

My humble opinion: the release was rude and inaccurate, BUT I do believe that your involvement with Caterham Cars, whether it is the road cars division or the F1 group, does affect your ability to ensure neutrality.

I am sorry, but both companies are under the same umbrella and no one from any other division would be happy about a negative opinion you may eventually publish about the F1 team performance during this year. If you were one of them, would you?

Therefore, in my view there is an issue here. I know that you’ve built a impeccable reputation over the last 25 years and there is no reason (nor evidence) to think that you’ve been twisting facts over the Group Lotus affairs since last year, BUT in my humble opinion you should reconsider being part of the Caterham Group for as long as the team is involved in F1.

I know that money matters, but it is impossible to deny that there is a conflict of interests here. Sorry, mate.

I admire what you do and the way that you do it, but you should take some time to reflect about all this.

Joe, as a loyal follower of your work can I just add my support to those others above. Your reporting has always been accurate and unbiased.

I used to work at Lotus and the current mess is very upsetting to many people local to Hethel. That stupid press release was the main news item on BBC Look East last night, complete with the Comical Dany sniffpetrol spoof. Chapmans current RPM around 20,000!!!!

I hope you continue your informative reporting for many years to come.

Despite it being a childishly worded press release, it’s generated all these comments about journalistic integrity rather than the integrity of the relationship between Group Lotus and the F1 team, so in a way it’s probably a masterstroke.

The original quotes from Gerard Lopez of Genii about the cancellation of the Lotus Sponsorship deal on April 6th are:

“The sponsorship agreement and the obligations of Lotus have been terminated. There is no option from Group Lotus to buy into F1 now – that option was taken over by us. There was one, but we have taken it over now.”

“We are happy to carry the Lotus name as we believe it is a good name for F1. We funded the team last year and the year before for whatever delta was missing. We would prefer to have sponsors up to the full amount – but if we have to fund it then we will fund it.”

“When we changed the name from Lotus Renault to Lotus, it opened up the door for a title sponsor. So if you take into account the fact we signed Unilever, probably the biggest sponsorship agreement this year in F1, and we signed Microsoft, which is huge news as it is a brand that has never been in F1 before, we have a wide space for sponsorship.

“If we sign a title sponsor now, we will end up with a better cash flow situation than this team ever had before.”

Group Lotus then send a press release on 11th April where they state:

“Group Lotus’ branding and marketing rights and subsequent activities remain unaffected by the new agreement until at least 2017. Alongside continued branding and title partnership status, Group Lotus is also the exclusive master licensee for all Lotus F1 Team merchandise.”

They also talk about the option they have to buy the team (although it doesn’t look as though they expicity get the entrant to F1), an option that Lopez says doesn’t exist.

It doesn’t add up. Yes, as I’m sure I don’t understand the full the facts (as some other websites love to preface it’s business articles with) but it looks to me the source of the confusion is Genii, not tweets or blogs. If Genii don’t know what’s going on, how are the rest of us supposed to?

Maybe we should look at this as a statement from a car company that has loaned an F1 team money, and managed to disrespect 3 other F1 teams in the process. It really should be put in perspective.

I wouldn’t care if you owned Williams. I come to the blog for information and entertainment. When I stop finding it, I will stop returning. In the meantime I enjoy and thank you for your writings here.

You’ve given disclosure, if people doubt your integrity, should they not read elsewhere?

Joe you know we trust you, no matter what “they” say. Like many others I have been reading this blog for years and I have to say it’s one of the best -the best ?- to learn real things about F1. I am not always sharing your point of view but I am always listening to, and taking into account, everything you write here. Future will tell who was right and who was wrong but if I had to bet I know where I will put my money. Merci pour tout Joe !

Of course, it all makes sense. Joe is responsible for Lotus being trouble. After reading that press release it dawned on me that he also responsible for the sinking of the Titanic, the cancellation of Dr Who in 1989 and the Surrey panther!

Those of us who’ve read you for years know how impartial you are Joe, keep it up.

As you probably know, even the spokesman for the Bahrain International Circuit admits you are unbiased, according to here – sorry for where that comes from:

“As a spokesman for the BIC, I am not in the business of simply calling journalists who have written negative views on Bahrain. People are entitled to their opinions, assuming these opinion are based on fact. For example, Joe Saward airs his view about Bahrain on a weekly basis. We have not spoken to him on a single occasion, because he is very careful to base his view on facts that he knows to be correct.”

Shame Mr. Bahar cannot have such a mature attitude when you write about him.

I have often talked to Sheikh Abdullah and Zayed Al Zayani. I believe that they have the best interests of Bahrain in mind, but we disagree about whether this is the right moment. I would love to be more confident but I just cannot accept that the risks are worth it for Formula 1.

Reading the Lotus press release you can see why there are questions about their likelyhood to survive. If it was an example of the quality of work the media department are capable of they will never make a go of it.

Joe all their screaming denial, of your non statements, likely shows your close to the mark with what you actually wrote.

I am rally glad you have responded to mentioned press release.
I have always enjoyed your blog and it has always provided me with less offitial versions of events or insight that is second to none. Obviously as any F1 sofa expert I read most of avaliable sourcess daily.
I knew that you have become a director at Caterham but I have missed information about it from yourself. You have left the door open for any sort of speculation by not really writing about it.
This and the fact that quite a few websites have taken what you have written as possible outcomes of Lotus situation as facts, wich were then slightly “sexed up”

But according to the reports about this you did not put it on your blog until months after you were made a director and a website reported it. Why did you not want to make it public before then? You know that Tony Fernandes is an owner of Caterham Cars and also an owner of the Caterham F1 team. Surely you would want to make your directorship transparent as soon as it happened, particularly since you have written a great deal of negative articles about Caterham’s rivals in F1 and a lot of positive articles about Caterham. This very fact, regardless of whether these articles were justified or not, made it all the more important, for reasons of professionalism, for you to disclose your connection to Caterham as soon as it was in place. You may not like the Lotus press release, and I am not seeking to justify it, but with this in mind it is not hard to understand why the comments about you were written and there is sadly nothing that you or any of us can do about that now.

Who is to say that it has even started now? How do you know? That is my business. I put it on the blog when I put it on the blog and that is how it is. I am bored rigid with dealing with your silly comments. If you don’t the blog, go somewhere else. This endless nitpicking is a waste of energy.

Openly disclosing your affiliation with Caterham when it occured would’ve saved you the ton of crap you’re getting now. The manner of disclosing it could’ve been a few sentences explaining the nature of the affiliation and why you chose to take it. To be doubly transparent you could include a one sentence note at the end of every post about TF and Caterham alerting the reader to your affiliation (even more convenient would be to paste a link so you don’t have to type it out). Simple, done. If people then chose to critique you about it, I would understand the irritation. However, keeping it quiet until forced to reveal it just makes you look bad. Your intentions may not have been to hide it but it just looks that way.

Here in the U.S., media publications and journalists routinely disclose their affiliation with the subject of the story (for example, slate.com in articles mentioning the Washington Post newspaper that owns them). Yes, even in blogs. Not doing so, opens the author or publication to the “nitpicking” you’re getting now. Not sure how things are done in Europe but that’s my view of things.

Final point, it’s a little odd that you scrutinize subjects involved in F1, yet you can’t seem to handle it when your readers do the same to you.

Anyway, before you say so I’m well aware I’m welcome to quit reading your blog. But I won’t because I like it.

Could it be there is NOTHING positive to write about Lotus and their ‘effed up approach to business, and nothing NEGATIVE to write about concerning Caterham F1? Should Joe concoct positive/negatives to satisfy your misguided sense of fairness?

Joe,
As one who pushed you to disclose the Caterham link and role “up front” in the main part of the blog, it was for this very reason. If the role was clearly explained in public then accusations of bias and lack of independence would not stick or complicate life. I pushed because frankly I value your opinion and critically insight into F1 or I would not waste my time reading this blog. You fully are entitled to your opinions and expressing them, long may you do so.

My pushing was to ensure that a press release like this had no value. Thankfully it is so badly written that no one would take it seriously. My guess is they don’t like you telling the truth and exposing the soft underbelly of all that has gone on at Group Lotus. Take that as a compliment that you are doing your job. You are not there to make people feel comfortable, but to report the story.

Group Lotus can’t get away from the fact the business plan is pie in the sky and in this case the controversy was started by a senior person at Genii capital, not Joe, essentially an insider. To then point the blame at Joe instead of one of their business partners is a massive case of deflecting. Regardless of what Joe says, I have not thought highly of Group Lotus and the poor business plan since the beginning, this is just another case of bad business and poor decision making letting this press release see the light of day and is part of the death spiral of Group Lotus.

Joe take heart that your fans want you to get on and express your opinions. I don’t care if you take a board members role on the F1 team, just as soon as your status changes, I suggest you make it a full story on the front page so it is out in a clear and fully explained for all! Then all your fans can join in attacking the fools that dare to attack you! Keep up the good work Joe, you have to be touching a nerve or they would not attack you, instead of using specific facts!

I must admit I did burst out laughing when I read the Lotus press release. A complete PR disaster which was only missing 2 words from the end, the classic playground ending, “So nerrrrrr”.

Joe, I’ve been an avid reader of your blog for years, you have never made a secret of your associations re: Caterham or Fernandes. When you are writing based on facts you state they are facts and when you write about something that is a rumour or conjecture you clearly state that too. So I would ignore many of those who have signed up simply to offer ill-informed abuse on your stance and carry on doing what you do best.

Looking at twitter over the last day it seems like all the journalists and bloggers really in the know in F1 are backing you to the hilt, which surely wouldn’t be the case if they believed you to have bias.

I trust in honest, well-informed people with a lot of experience. I can tell those things by the way you write this blog and how you usually explain yourself.
People usually don’t like other people telling things as simple as they are, they are always figuring out things underneath that just aren’t there to find a way to attack and question your honestity.
I understand you getting upset by this kinf of things, but c’mon, you’re professional enough to put yourself above this shit. Time will put everything in its right place, anyway.
Keep on doing your good job. Your insights in the F1 world are just priceless.

Well I got what I’m looking for here. Simply silly Formula One entertainment at it’s finest. Joe vs. Lotus= big laughs. The Caterham and Joe conspiracies are a hoot to read as well as the angry defence .The reaction of the readers here defending their guy like it matters and the Blogger himself tearing and shredding hearts and minds as usual. Love it long time. Can’t wait to be shredded up for my own comment.😉

BTW Joe, I’ve come to appreciate your blog for what it is to me. Thanks for that and keep up the good work. No matter how many times you tell me to get lost I come back for more.

No it’s because Lotus were the plucky privateer who felled the state sponsored giant… for about two decades give or take.
I have zero nostalgia or sentimentality for Ferrari because for most of my life they never made very good road cars and were pretty rubbish in F1.

Im sure it’s been said a multitude of times by now, but I think that most of us regular readers in your blog know of your ethics and integrity, not sure why anyone would come back repeatedly it if the believed otherwise.

You offer insight into an area of F1 that rarely has light shed on it, giving us a better understanding of the sport as a whole. You have been clear about your involvement with Caterham from the beginning so us readers can choose to take that into consideration when reading posts related to the company; as far as I am concerned your position has been transparent all along.

As far as the Group Lotus PR department goes, it’s clear to see that all they are doing is simple misdirection. If they bark long enough about Fernandez, you or even their supposed F1 partner, maybe people will loose sight of the fact that Bahar et all have run the company into a very deep hole.

Joe, I must say that at first I was surprised in a somewhat negative way about your association with Caterham.

But having red this post I must say I’m 100% on your side on this. Keep up the great work.

Here in Brazil there was in the 1990’s a bad called Planet Hemp. One of their best work was an album called “Os Cães Ladram Mas a Caravana Não Para”, which translates as “the dogs bark but the caravan does not stop”. Dany Bahar is just a dog barking.

Joe, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Your musings, insights & information continue to be invaluable to F1 enthusiasts. So a freelance, jobbing journo gets paid for experience and advice – we should all be so lucky! Mind you with your long track record I guess luck has little to do with it, it’s all down to hard graft.
Long may you continue to inform, entertain and infuriate us… a curse on Pitpoor.com and all their houses.
With best wishes.

Can you appreciate why people might be a little put off? I mean, for example, if I found out that Jeremy Paxman had a directorship on the conservative party, I would begin to question his ability to scrutinize certain stories.

Ultimately though, the Caterham job does sound like an incredible opportunity. I can completely understand why you would take it. Ignore the comments that say you should give it up – that is entirely up to you. But the harsh reaction to some of these comments where people express legitimate concerns is somewhat unwarranted. It may be out in the open, but that still does not remove the air of uncertainty that there might be an issue (I refer to the example above – that it is out in the open would still not make me trust Paxo). I don’t know you personally, so simply relying on your moral compass would be a blind leap of faith, something I afford to no journalist – and I hope you would never expect a reader to.

It should be a compliment that your professional journalism has attracted a set of readers that challenge their sources. Like good journalists do. Like you would do…

His associations make it perfectly acceptable to question what he says and view it with a critical eye (one should view anything they read with a critical eye); however, his associations do not warrant an outright rejection of whatever he says on related subjects.

A fact from the most biased person is still a fact.

That said, whenever Joe says something, it’s as objective as it gets, as far as I can see.

Joe, I’d just like to offer my support as a long time reader and gp+ subscriber. You have obviously made the company very embarrassed by merely by reporting THE TRUTH!!! Why you have a mention in the press releases and not every other reporter that is doing the same, I have no idea. It screams of unprofessionalism to name you like that. I hope you take pleasure in that when your colleagues have reported on it, they have ignored the handbags and concentrated on the facts. You are obviously we’ll respected within your industry, and hey, any publicity is good publicity!

Go on Joe. I’ve got some stuff to spill but I don’t have your balls lol, plus certain people at Lotus literally know where I live!

The impression that’s been left here on the ground in Norfolk, around the factory area and in the cafes and supermarkets is that Lotus have gone stark raving mad. With all due respect Joe, you’re well known in F1 circles and the like, but in general anything you say on this blog doesn’t get discussed in Waitrose in Wymondham. Thanks though to perhaps the craziest PR backfire since Milli Vanilli claimed they really did sing on their records, now Lotus have advertised to the whole world that they may have problems, spooking suppliers and I presume buyers.

I stood in my local petrol station this morning, which happens to be attached to a Lotus dealer. Long Stratton, Norfolk in case youre interested. The chap in front of me picked up the local paper which is carrying the lotus story as its lead, glanced at it and said to his colleague “…so they’re gorn bust then have they, old Lotus?” (Norfolk accent!) on the inside pages they print the spoof Bahar picture. Not bust of course, before Hethel slag me off for spreading rumours, but that perception by the public iis of their (Lotus) making.

So Joe, over to you for Lotus part 243. Hey wait, is there some racing thing in China this weekend?

not libel if you have genuine belief and are wrong, either. Just don’t state it as fact. Okay, you can’t take what I write as formal advice, but I assure you it’s valid what I say on this subject, and if the construction of the law, not bandied about misconceptions were heeded, it might get a bunch more interesting, as well as ultimately productive, this place😉

For info, some deranged blogger called AnthonyC wrote up on the CAR mag website this am that the paddock in China is in uproar over the press release.

Apparently the teams are all on Lotus’ side and think that this is a timely way of putting Tony Fernandes in his place. The only person complaining about it is (apparently) you. Described somewhat disingenuously as ….’a partisan scribe’.

The sad thing is, the way that the blog is written puts me in mind of the press release and I’d put money on knobhead Anthony having had more than a hand in the original work.

You have the best F1 site out there – the only one that matters. All the Danny Bahars and Chris Sylts of this world can frankly go jump in a lake! Keep up the good work and may your vindication come swiftly.

It strikes me that all the complainers here are missing one thing. You are not the only source of news on things like this. If you were pushing a viewpoint that wasn’t being mirrored elsewhere in cyberspace then they might have something to complain about. All you are doing is taking publicly known facts and placing an interpretation on them, one which I and many others find very interesting and illuminating. For Group to publicly hit out at you only makes it more obvious that there is something they are trying to hide or shy away from.

To be honest, I also wouldn’t object if you did have a vested interest in an actual F1 operation, the news and views you post on here keep me coming back several times a day looking for more reading material.

It is interesting that no-one commented when David Coulthard was chosen to be part of the BBC coverage, despite being involved with Red Bull – I believe he still is to this day. Surely that is far more of a conflict of interest but what it does bring also is a great insight in to how a team actually works.

Out of interest, I would guess you also have some confidentiality clauses as part of your directorship which actually prevents you releasing some details of the work being done at Caterham? I bet no-one picks up on things like that when having a go…

Great comment, Coulthard point spot on. My workday – get up, tea, milk for three year old daughter, iPad check on Joe while kettle boils, bath, studio, check Joe, read a bit, few calls, email alert on new joe blog…. You get the idea.

This blog is as Joe says, his house, so if you dont like the wallpaper
go next door, but don’t hang around slagging off the host and still eating his canapés. Sorry I’m lost in metaphor hell now.

Joe, thanks for your long time involvement in Formula1 and Motorsport in general. I wish nothing but the best for you in all your endeavors! May I ask do you get a 7 for your involvement? One could only hope!

Just read the Lotus diatribe….dear me! Like many of the posters above am behind you, keep on trucking and don’t be bullied! At least it will be Sunday afternoon soon and the flag drops and the bulls**t stops for a couple of hours eh?!

Proper PR meltdown over at Lotus. Wonder who is carrying the can? Can’t believe DB didn’t sign off on it. Couldn’t give a monkeys about Joe’s Non Exec role at Caterham, the whole world of F1 is full of information and misinformation anyway. You read plenty of sources and make your mind up yourself. If Joe did anything wrong I think Lotus would call be calling in the lawyers. From what I’ve seen he has more of a case to go after them. Utter madness. On the plus side my 4 year old wrote a better press release than that today. She has a strong future. Lotus on the other hand……

Such a shame you are having to justify yourself Joe, would suggest people, as they say in the joinery business “measure twice cut once” before they come to certain conclusions. From what I have read from all different forms of media nothing you have reported is defamatory in anyway. Would suggest the opposite and is very impartial and thought through.
Keep up the good work Joe and don’t let the bar stewards get you down

I’ve been a reader of your blog for a long time and was somewhat taken aback by the article on Autosport.com the other day. I must say it did not stack up with the Joe I’ve been following and am pleased you’ve set the record straight.

While some of the negative comments surrounding this topic must be offensive, frustrating and tiring for you to deal with Joe, they are also a great reflection on the quality and relevance that your writing has to those with an interest if F1 and the community of interests surrounding it.

The Lotus name, and the fortunes and failures attached to it, remain a big deal to a lot of people, even if their only association with the company might have been ogling a bright red Lotus Esprit in poster form on their wall as a teenager.

Your personal connection to the story, and the reaction to it, certainly highlights the incredible sensitivity surrounding the topic of Conflicts Of Interest. It is a subject ripe for easy outrage and seems to repel nuance, circumstance or facts; blood boiling stuff indeed.

Joe, massive fan of the blog. When I found out originally i was annoyed but it was only because i hadn’t heard it from you. You provide the perfect insight into f1 and long may it continue and forget the haters.

Dany Bahar should never of released that as it has harmed him more. Lotus could never be ferrari however much he tried. Someone needs to just pick up the name and start again. Genii should probably try and get TVR into the sport instead🙂 .

Keep doing what we all love and tell tony, please boost the british car industry by all means but dont you dare takeaway the caterham seven as no other manufacter like westfield comes close in terms of quality driving

Hi Joe, It seems there are a lot of idiots giving you grief here so I would just like to thank you for greatly enhancing my enjoyment of the sport through the blog, gp + and sidepodcast. Your passion for the sport is at all times obvious as is your honesty. And if you feel a bit torn up from this affair just remember that you have the respect of the majority of fans and I gather most of the paddock. Good luck

Don’t sweat it joe i have been reading alot of comments about the lotus release from all sorts of places on the net. The general feeling from people who are not die hard crazy fans is that lotus are idiots/mad, they can’t understand why lotus would release such a childish PR. I think at the very worst your blog might gain a few extra hits and maybe even some life long fans so chin up.

I usually don’t bother with getting in this kind of mix, because privately you have my support. But looking at the screeds of comments here, you sure know now that taking that job was of far wider public interest.

Whether the interest is misguided, has no clue, or is arse about, or just unpleasant, I think it would have been way cooler you ran a blog story about joining Caterham in the first place. I know you have your principles, and they hold, but I still simply cannot work out how you misunderstimated the potential response.

You simply have way more readers of this blog than I think even the webserver stats might show. About 5 or so from my machine, have a look over, any given day.

You know the whole Lotus saga, all parts, is still live controversy.

People will try to drag you into parts – and fantasies of perverse imagination – nothing to do with you. You made yourself easy game. I hate to say it but you made a controversial molehill out of a Form 288A by your inaction. It’s still all stupid. But why risk looking to anyone as if you would cloud your writing over that?

Joe, I respect your experience and work. It\’s obvious you\’re very passionate, as I believe a lot of the fans here. But you must be aware that when you\’re in such a conflict of interests, you must at least avoid taking sides on matters concerning some of the direct court rivals of your employer. It\’s not ethical. Both in business and journalism.
I see that you\’re not exactly the most open person in receiving criticism, but in this case you shouldn\’t have done any of this. It would be much better to stay quiet and avoid starting the excuse factory.
You know, no court in the world will accept things like \”my high standards are this and that\”. Everywhere around the world it is accepted that journalists are not independent when they\’re in the board of a company or political party.
What do you think would have happened if were working for Consumer Reports and at the same time had your seat at GM\’s board? It\’s the same situation here! High or low standards, it\’s an obvious mistake on your side.
Go speak with any attorney on the matter and find me one that agrees with you!

Joe, I generally refrain from commenting here because I was one of those who thought you should close your blog to comments a while back. However, I just want to stick an oar in to express my appreciation for your blog.

Time and again, I have found my understanding of F1 to have been deepened and enhanced by your writing. You fill the background to the racing with exquisite detail and insight, clearly based on an intimate understanding and what must be a huge range of contacts within and around the sport.

I find it remarkable that so much effort has been expended here in trying to convince you that you’re doing it wrong, and it seems presumptuous in the extreme for strangers to tell you how you should conduct yourself.

It’s this simple: no-one forces me to read your blog and yet I keep coming back for more. Keep it up!

Joe, thanks for keeping the blog up.
It’s no wonder that when your name is mentioned by other publications (of repute), it’s usually prefaced with a compliment, as in: “…well respected F1 journalist Joe Saward…”.
Don’t get mad with people who don’t know what they are talking about. “The problem with wrestling with a pig is that you both end up dirty and the pig likes it”. So just don’t do it… don’t let it ruin your day.

Anyone that understands the concept of a non-exec should realise that in the grand scale of things, it means bugger all. In fact in my experience it’s little more than an AGM, a line on a CV and a few expenses receipts.

Sometimes your posts on GL, Bahar, Force India, Flavio etc do seem overly opinionated but then…who really cares, if you say they’re the facts then I’ll take that. It’s not as though I know any better or that it really matters to my life.

What I value though is that your blog is not poorly updated junk and neither is it full of non-stores like “Alonso says Ferrari need to improve”. Instead it’s my 8am click and easily the most hammered link in my favourites. It’s a true ‘cup of tea blog’. In other words I cherish reading each post and will make a cup of dedicated cup of tea or coffee with which to enjoy it.

http://www.pitpass.com/45998-A-storm-in-a-teacup
Its seems some of Joes colleagues in the press are not very sympathetic to Joes case…….no surprise there then!
But the article does give another view…and everyone is entitled to a view I guess, even if JS does not agree with it.
That why blogs work……..if Joe censored the alternative view then that would be bias!

Interesting use of the word “colleague”. That suggests we do the same job. Not true at all. Some of us are F1 reporters, others sit at home and make it up as they go along. There are thousands of websites that claim to be about F1 and about 300 permanent pass holders. What does that tell you?

Joe – Unfortunately this is a sign of the times. F1 has gotten lazy and fat on the back of poor “journalism” in the sport. They are used to their press releases being fed to the public word for word to get across the corporate spin. It is the independent press that is able to get across the real news to those who are interested.

A few months back I think you had a bit of a whinge about how difficult it was for you to cut through the mass of rehashing websites. I would suggest that Lotus has done you a professional courtesy by mentioning your name. I would like to see the stats for how many times your name has been googled in the past few days and how that translates to higher traffic to your blog! Isn’t that ironic…..

I once posted here about my admiration for TF – he’s a (well-to-do) fan just like the rest of us (except most of us don’t own an airline). When I posted that sentiment some, perhaps, six months ago, I thought I might be out of line with the prescribed standard of the blog. I had no idea that JS could be a blinkin’ Director of part of the Firm.

Picking nits, there is no technical distinction in the acts between executive and non executive roles for companies, until you come to the financial services acts and those parts governing quoted companies. (you alter things by contract and in the articles to reflect) But Joe’s role is sufficiently clear to me I doubt he needed to become a director, just that position gives his advice weight usefully in a company structure, and amusingly, keeps him honest. Hey Joe, are you going to be one of the 2,000 directors whose salvation will be actually understanding their duties and liabilities under the law??!!🙂 Honestly, freaking billion a year company boardrooms seem oblivious to the most basic of fundamentals, let alone higher interpretations. Not excusing anyone, but looking from the outside in, I half guess Joe got appointed director because he’s capable of the position. Not like he couldn’t have just had a advisory contract and kept it all quiet forever. The public appointment disproves the conspiracies, not confirms them.

Official sales figures for Lotus YTD 35 cars UK. A mix of models I guess so say £50000 each gross, thats £800,000 per month before cost of sales. I have no idea about markups in the motor industry but will they clear 250,000? 1200 staff, let’s say 1000 of them are shop floor on £20,000, so £1600 a month. That’s 1.6 mil a month with no management or overhead. Someone will I’m sure pull the real figures and work this out. I’m guessing it’s three times as bad as this.

You don’t need to be a forensic accountant to work out that as a stand alone car division, I’m not talking about Lotus Engineering, unless a new owner is going to take maybe £10mil pa loss on the chin right now, then you’ve got problems. They need cars flying out the door, 100 a month. All a bit academic now but couldn’t they have found something, anything to bolt in the back of an Elise rather than kill it off?

That GL pushed out this release is one thing, but as others have said, this is a blog.

Regular readers know two things:

– Joe doesn’t suffer fools well
– Here, the facts make up largely for the lack of b.s.

In life and business, anyone with any degree of real world success or experience understands that key to that, long term, is managing all kinds of different relationships. That is just how it is. One head, many hats.

In this format, Joe has never been backward in coming forward. There are a couple of running themes, but all completely transparent if you’ve been around here long enough to take notice. Occassionally, I do chuckle when Schumi gets a bit of a touchup…

Joe and DT’s work is different to much else that is out there simply because they are F1 fans of the purest form. It is even on their masthead for crissakes: “it’s all about the passion”. If you don’t “get” that, there are other websites and blogs that will serve you better, but still appreciate this site and its content for what it is – news and opinion from a bloke who lives and breathes it.

The title list of the articles is quite impressive but when you start reading them you rapidly lose the will to live.

Their current bit on the Lotus issue (‘issuance’ ?) seems to talk itself round in a circle, offers no opinion or analysis and drowns the reporting in conjecture.

I’ll still read it but drawing info from their work is bloody hard.

It feels like they are big on regurgitating stuff but have little actual commercial or sport experience so can’t really contribute themselves beyond that.

I’m not having a go, its just how I read it. More power to them if they can sort it out, but reading their report on the Lotus protest re the Mercedes ‘wing/air-routing’ issue was like wading through treacle.

AND

Who is this Sync, Syrc, Snype fellow (or whatever his name is) who is apparently …………….’the only journalist in the world to report continuously on the business and commerce of F1′ ?
I beg to differ, from what I read ref the Lotus/Proton saga he’s a list maker. Couldn’t see any analysis or comment, and the supposition ref future ownership/loan arrangements was wildly speculative and on 3 occasions in the middle of the article he seemed to lose his way.
He also forgot to sum it up.

As I say, I’ll continue to read it as it probably will give a snippet or two extra, but I’m a bit dubious re the ‘informed comment’ bit.

Wow. I made my first post here 2 days ago. This topic is quite hot with overwhelming support for Joe. I disagree with Joe. I believe he has made an error in judgment. Despite this being Joe’s website, I’m really surprised by the level support for his explanation because his lapse is quite obvious. For those that work with similar matters you’ll recognize the ubiquitous ‘When the law is against you, you argue the facts. When the facts are against you, you argue the law.’ Joe is arguing the facts because the law is clearly against him. Now the point is moot if Joe has surrendered the title of journalist. If it’s just about opinion and punditry, he’s fine. F1 is entertainment and controversy is profitable. Unfortunately, I think Joe hasn’t arrived there yet because it appears he can’t see the forest through the trees. That sounded harsh, but I don’t know how else to write it.

The ‘Law’ I referred to above are the ethical standards of journalism. He’s a cut/paste from an authority.

Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

The SPJs ethics code is great and has been a good idea. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a former card carrying NUJ member, ex BBC amongst others, but this is real world, that code was written in the days when you could get a well paid job working for one organization only and it paid the mortgage and fed the kids.

Joe is freelance and when you are you have many masters. As an appropriate aside, I know one of the most respected and impartial journos in MotoGP, and he did team press support for decades for amongst others, Rothmans Honda, maybe he still does work for teams, but I’d trust his word on anything, and millions of TV viewers around the world still do.

My vote here is that we all stop wasting our time and Joe’s effort replying as we poke our nose into his business affairs, like we’ve said a million times, it’s a blog, he can do what he likes, maybe he should make it a paid subscription service. Just my opinion, call me a JS fan or whatever, I like his views, I want to hear them, he has great contacts and generally his predictions come true. He’s not a public servant, not a politician (although Joe for PM might be fun) or the head of the Church of England, so let him be.

End of subject from me. Please throw stones at my glass house with care.

I believe I can read from the writing, unsighted, whether someone is serious or not. There are to many tells. With the facility we have today to quickly check someone’s interests and previous writing, I think the idea of a code is outmoded. Problems only exist with large institutions corporatively distorting stories. But then is that a problem, either?

So my pal’s office keeps on the screens, subtitled, Russia Today, Al Jazeera, CNBC and whichever one rotated say B’berg TV or BBC World. It’s a variety, and to be honest I think any major media outlet is a running joke, the biases and propaganda scream ridiculously. I used to have BBC Monitoring, Reuters feed, and the B’berg terminal. Will do again, when I need to peer farther into the news world for my work. Do I believe any given one? Err, nope.

I could essay the landscape of Joe’s writing, also, but don’t because it’s a nuisance to unravel how I read someone, once I’m used to them. The Economist is fun, a comic book in many ways. Grant’s Interest Rate Observer is worth it’s very high sub, very punchy, but you are still getting Jim Grant’s personal style, and objectivity is always in the eye of the beholder.

All one ever does is put a premium on one’s own time, and divert and ration attention both reading and cognition, informed by how one reads. I am usually of the view that who moans about press ethics or standards – as they are concerning just the reader – is either naive or a third rate journalism student. The point of writing or reporting should simply be to heighten the quality of information to be evaluated by the reader. Dead simple, done and dusted. I don’t know of any other purpose, so it should not need to be said.

I am deliberately setting aside questions as to how mass media affect opinion, because I do not believe that morals operate in mass media, or in the masses. I just believe there’s a huge market gap to do better than the circulation of The Private Eye in bringing to a true public audience the stories which need to be reported. Big outlets always tend to oligopoly and stagnation. CNN was once a good force, but was spent. ITN is barely a shadow of itself. The market functions inefficiently, and that is that.

Unless some changes can be made in advertising trading. You don’t sashay in to any significant media venture without a crack sales team in tow. That’s the hurdle. Something I believe can be changed. It could have been that online ad brokerage might have come close to my thinking. A friend who stands to get very rich if a company in that field IPOs, who i met recently after some years, opened with “John, everything you said 10 years ago came true, just online” I didn’t have heart to engage to explain that those markets developed the features, maybe, of what I wanted, but from a very different, captive, position, and so are not capable of fulfilling a public function in the manner I envision.

I am totally pro free markets, including in media, and obviously pro diversity and individual choice. I nevertheless believe the markets critical to media are neither markets in a positive open sense, nor functioning well, even within their rather limited world views. Murdoch should be free to poach who he wants, leverage what he wants, but newcomers should have far better routes to entry. (again, I need to ignore the obvious filth of professional journalism, simply reference Hislop’s testimony in Leveson, that we have effective laws and do not use them. That corruption is symptomatic a far deeper social dysfunction. One does not build open markets to address such ingrained malfeasance and moral poverty without distorting the very ability and function of such a free market.)

Joe, the Bahrain situation has given me an idea. I presume that being a director of Caterham does not conflict with the terms of your media pass from the FIA so if you could get the FIA to release a statement saying that they endorse your position as an accredited journalist that would counter the Lotus press release. I’m not sure if you (or any journalist) have got enough influence with the FIA to do this but it would certainly show Lotus a thing or two. It would also be useful if Lotus try to convince the FIA to remove your pass as you would get there first by getting the FIA to confirm they support you.